Your views on live-in relationships.. - Page 7

Originally posted by: apux

Originally posted by: ashoka_was_king

Yup ,
saying each case is different , would end almost every debate there and then 😃

Originally posted by: ashoka_was_king

You think I remember the questions that I ask? 😆 Sorry, didn't realize at the time that you were answering my own asked questions. That's my problem, I ask too many questions. 😆

Yes, I agree, we learn more from our mistakes than our good deeds.

Well, I wasn't disclosing my relationship status (well, I was😆), but only to add a disclaimer that my idealistic views come from the fact that life seems beautiful and full of hope from where I'm standing. 😳 Anyways, even relationship status doesn't keep virtual wolves at bay. 😉😆

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Hehe we are more dramatic than a soap opera here. We create our own drama going back an forth dragging topics to death. 😆

Originally posted by: apux

Oh good, I felt quite rude. 😆 Reply made. 😊

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

In my opinion I don't think that anyone is really trying to demean the marriage here. The problem I feel here lies in the distinction between the romantic notion of marriage most people have versus the modern state defined marriage.

Well isn't calling marriage a social license or a "contract" demeaning the institution? Defining marriage or marriage vows as a simple signature on paper is making the true essence of marriage meaningless. Hmm, what do you characterize as the modern state defined marriage? Is it now simply a practical compromise? Is the romantic notion not attached to it?

I completely agree with you when you say marriage is the union of two souls, an eternal and beautiful bond shared between two people. However, when do we consider two people married? When they either undergo a religious or civil ceremony of marriage. Most definitions of marriage necessitate an official of some sort and witnesses. This in itself takes the relationship from being something extremely personal between two souls. If two people say they are soul mates and they have their personal commitments to each other and forces that they believe in, we would not accept it. They are told, well its not real, its not official - and so on and so forth. It seems that union of two souls is not being treated like the key factor - the social sanction is.

Well the marriage occurs between to individuals, where they exchange vows, perhaps not even verbally, but by simply accepting each other while know their imperfections. Now, if you're concerned with the wedding portion of marriage, that's different. Each culture's idea of a wedding is different. I agree with you that why is so much significance given to the "official" aspect of a wedding. Can't a man and woman accept each other in the eyes of God, without hundreds of witnesses? From a religious perspective, I understand that witnesses are preferred to make the event special, to make it "official", and perhaps we may not agree with it. But when you live in a certain society, and culture, you have to learn to accept the norm and traditions, and this just happens to be one of them.

We can't all be Thoreau and practice Civil Disobedience, can we? 😊

Modern marriage due to its state approved nature is a result of legal rules. Now there is nothing against the rules, age of consent, mental stability, not being related make complete sense. The fact is that the essential ingredient 'love' cannot be measured, tested, reported and is not a criterion for marriage. Hence, we have people marrying for all sorts of reasons - money, fame, immigration you name it.

Well, just like you can't stop murder, violence, racism, crime in a society, you can't change people's intentions. Unfortunately, human nature comes with all these negative assets, and that in a way is also a "contribution" to society.

Perhaps we should set up a 1984 (referring to George Orwell's novel here)-type society, and then perhaps we'll be able to judge people's true intentions, not just in marriage, but in all aspects of society/life. 😆

The fact also remains that marriage is a socio-religious contract. This is not a statement to demean marriage. Society, Law and other forces have shaped it into an institution that goes well beyond two souls committed to each other eternally. Religions require an exchange of vows and rituals. By definition an exchange of verbal promises is a verbal contract. Social and religious restrictions make you bound to an oath of commitment, fidelity, love. Legal restrictions offer tax benefits along with inheritance, privacy etc. The format is all contractual. Of course as you say two people who want to be together for the rest of their lives automatically bind themselves to each other emotionally, spiritually etc. There are commitments made within the soul right away. However, the way marriage is set up in our society makes marriage an institution as well as a contract.

Perhaps you're right, marriage isn't just a contract between two souls on an emotional and spiritual level, but also a contractual agreement in society, that abides with the government's as well as the religious laws designed by society. But is that so wrong? If a government wishes to keep a record of all married couples via licenses, is that wrong? Can't we agree that to function properly a society requires some set of laws? (Diverging off topic now ...)

Personally, I have nothing against marriage. I will admit there probably is something special about marriage. You do not see people going nuts over the fact that they will be living in with someone in a year. You do not see elaborate plans, preparations, overwhelming emotions for living-in. As they say when you are in love you want to climb on the rooftop and shout it out to the world. A wedding ceremony is the rooftop and wedding vows/rituals are the shout out. There definitely is something special about marriage, that something casual like live-in may not have. However, that special is not in the wedding ceremony, the law, the vows or anything that we see or hear in a marriage. It is completely and totally in the 'feelings and emotions' of the two people getting married.

You put it in very beautiful words. To me marriage and that whole "pre-marriage" excitement is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that is every individual's right. Why would you want to give that up? The emotions that one undergoes at that given point, a live-in relationship can't give you that.

What irks me most about many marriage 'purists' is the fact that some of them can be so quick to judge. They claim marriage to be the bond between two souls, but focus on the institutional aspect. A large number of couples living-in do share the love and commitment of a married couple, but are turned of by how modern society has institutionalized marriage. If a wedding ceremony was truly about shouting on your rooftop, more people would take the plunge - but modern society makes marriage more than just love. Also marriage 'purists' are also trying to make marriage exclusive. Religious institutions refuse to sanction marriage if both individuals do not conform to their tenets, across the world families still try to stop or prevent marriage because of race, class, social status, income level, religion etc.

Again, you can't condemn the institution of marriage (not that you are) simply because people marry for the wrong reasons. We can't change that, but rather only comment upon it. Plus, that's a generalized statement, if say a few given do marry for a higher social status, for wealth, or marriage is stopped because of race, income, class, religion, but aren't there still some who marry because of "true love" (whatever the heck that may be 😆).

Now, you bring in another question here, which I won't comment upon, but rather point out that my personal view is that you marry someone who you can share your life with -- and that includes everything, from love, faith, religion, morals, beliefs, all the way to materialistic objects. To me personally, it would be hard to spend my whole life with someone who doesn't share my faith/beliefs. (Again, diverging off topic ...)

Then there is the modern approach to prevent marriage over sexual orientation. The fact that large numbers struggling and praying to get married when they could just be having casual sex or live-ins shows the 'magical feeling' marriage can have. However, society deems that this 'magical feeling' ought to be an exclusive club - you cannot have it unless you follow the rules - it does not matter how much deeply you are in love.

Gayism? Keeping my mouth shut .... keeping my mouth shut. 😆 Or else I'll completely diverge off-topic. 😆

Which is why I personally prefer to have the most simplistic approach to relationships. It is all about and only about the two people involved and the relationship they share. What matters is their love for each other, their connections emotional, spiritual and physical. When two right people meet - and share something magical - that is all that matters. Who am I to decide if they meet my requirements of commitment? Who am I to say when, how, and why they should make their commitments? Which is why marriage, live-ins, affairs, whatever labels we like to create and slap on in society matter nothing to me - what matters is two people and their relationship.

I agree, the first step is the emotional and spiritual connection between two individuals. After that, they are free to decide which path is the right one for them.

Originally posted by: *Woh Ajnabee*

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Marriage or live-in same difference. Except in marriage no need to say thank you. You signed a contract to be taken for granted.

Originally posted by: *Woh Ajnabee*

Not just drama, we have lot of thrill incorporated in the soaps we run from here as well😛

Hey, there was a reason behind recruiting you --- needed someone who, just like me, doesn't know when to call it quits😆 I feel so much better now a days with you around here🤗